See, that seems to me like a redefining of terms to fit an argument ("all porn is degrading to women, because if it's not degrading to women it's not porn"). The connection of pornography with the sexual objectification of women is a lot of why I think that children should not be exposed to pornography and all of why I don't find your argument that censoring sex is misogynistic to be convincing. Obviously not all porn is degrading to women, but to divide it into "well, this type of sexually explicit content is always degrading to women and this type always isn't" underestimates how pervasive the sexual objectification of women is in a patriarchial culture. If explicit sexual content is often about men objectifying women, censoring it isn't misogynistic, but just the opposite, and I think it's useful to keep it from children until they're old enough to sort out what is good and what isn't.
But suddenly your argument makes more sense to me, now that I understand the definitions you're using.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: #5
Date: 2007-12-10 12:19 am (UTC)But suddenly your argument makes more sense to me, now that I understand the definitions you're using.